Mainlink Developments Pty Limited v BAM (Australia) Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 832

Mainlink Developments Pty Limited v BAM (Australia) Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 832

The demand was set aside because the evidence disclosed genuine disputes both as to whether Mainlink Developments Pty Limited was the contracting party and as to whether the $25,000 payment and signed document effected a compromise of the claimed debt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand Under S 459 G of the Corporations Act / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Statutory demand set aside; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs on a party and party basis; indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'contracting Party' 'compromise' 'costs']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency'] ['statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'contracting Party' 'compromise' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand Under S 459 G of the Corporations Act / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff was the relevant contracting party for the brickwork debt claimed in the statutory demand.' 'Whether an alleged compromise by payment of $25,000 raised a genuine dispute sufficient to set aside the statutory demand.' 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The demand was set aside because the evidence disclosed genuine disputes both as to whether Mainlink Developments Pty Limited was the contracting party and as to whether the $25,000 payment and signed document effected a compromise of the claimed debt.

Court Disposition

Statutory demand set aside; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs on a party and party basis; indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The statutory demand served by the defendant on the plaintiffs dated 23 June 2003 be set aside.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'Costs will be on a party and party basis.']